Now we're talking- Wyoming to bring back the Firing Squad

[Kondor3]

...The key thing here is "alledged". 153 of them didn't do what they were accused of. You see, I don't think you CAN fix all the problems with 100% of certainty. Not as long as you have human beings in the mix. So given that, you should never, ever have a penalty that cannot be undone once carried out... On top of that, it has no deterrent value and is ridiculously expensive.

We are just going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

I am also uncertain about your statistics (153 wrongful executions, out of a pool of 1300-something) - some quick Googling and Wiki-review seems to indicate a considerably lower number (4% wrongful executions rather than 10%, and most of that in decades past), but I won't quibble about it here overly much.

And, I agree that the system cannot be fixed with 100% certainty, but, one of the areas where you and I disagree is that I hold that one does not need to fix it to the 100% certainty level - merely to greatly improve upon existing (or recent decades, more accurately) performance, in order to render the concept viable again.

We disagree about ethics in this context, and we've already been over the cost issue - which can be largely remedied with better quality control on the front end, thereby trimming years or even decades off the lead-time to execution - and most other aspects of the subject matter.

We do, however, agree about the so-called Deterrence Value of Capital Punishment.

I don't think it does very much to deter murder, treason, desertion, etc. - at least not to an extent that could be defended as statistically significant.

What it does do - in the case of murder - is to take vengeance out of the hands of the family and put it into the better-controlled and objective hands of The State.

Otherwise, we would have a never-ending and broad range of multi-generational Hatfields-and-McCoys scenarios playing-out around the country.

We can delude our modern selves all we like, that the Capital Punishment aspect of our criminal justice system, is not about 'vengeance', but that's mere denial.

In the European tradition - stretching back all the way to late tribal and early nation-state times - the Temporal Lord (warlord, chieftain, knight, duke, count, king, emperor, grand poobah, whatever) took for himself the right to try capital cases, in his court, rather than letting the peasantry engage in perpetual vendetta.

Other parts of the world oftentimes developed a criminal trial process for capital cases in much the same way, plus or minus a variation here and there.

As far removed (in time and space) as we are from those earlier times, and as much as we would like to believe that we are sufficiently above such base and savage behaviors, the truth is, that, underlying our modern capital case criminal processes, the State-as-Avenger role is alive and well and merely repackaged.

A murderer takes the life of another human being - considered throughout time one of (if not the) worst crime known to Man.

Having deprived someone else of their life, society empowers The State to avenge the victim by depriving the killer of his-or-her life, in turn.

This is as much about satisfying an ancient human need for vengeance - in a reasonably fair and controlled manner - as anything of a higher nature.

Or so it seems to this observer.

 

[Meathead]

We are just going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

I am also uncertain about your statistics (153 wrongful executions, out of a pool of 1300-something) - some quick Googling and Wiki-review seems to indicate a considerably lower number (4% wrongful executions rather than 10%, and most of that in decades past), but I won't quibble about it here overly much.

That is incorrect. The 4.1% figure was the number of people who were innocent, sentenced to death, not executed. That in itself is a ludicrously high figure, but most of those so sentenced are never executed anyway due to states like California with 600+ on death row without any executions, natural death while waiting, exonerations, commuted sentences and so on.

Disingenuous people will use that statistic in self-righteous indignation. Very disturbed people like JoeB will exaggerate endlessly, as he clearly does above.

 

[Kondor3]

We are just going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

I am also uncertain about your statistics (153 wrongful executions, out of a pool of 1300-something) - some quick Googling and Wiki-review seems to indicate a considerably lower number (4% wrongful executions rather than 10%, and most of that in decades past), but I won't quibble about it here overly much.

That is incorrect. The 4.1% figure was the number of people who were innocent, sentenced to death, not executed. That in itself is a ludicrously high figure, but most of those so sentenced are never executed anyway due to states like California with 600+ on death row without any executions, natural death while waiting, exonerations, commuted sentences and so on.

Disingenuous people will use that statistic in self-righteous indignation. Very disturbed people like JoeB will exaggerate endlessly, as he clearly does above.

Yes. I believe that you may be right, and that I may have mis-read the quick-and-dirty little Wiki article that I'd found on the subject...

Wrongful execution - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

That 4% number was, indeed, a law professor's estimate of wrongful convictions for death-row inmates, not 4% actually executed.

In any event, if that number holds up under a closer scrutiny, it would appear far lower than the 1-in-10 that our colleague Joe has served-up.

 

[Steinlight]

That is a logical fallacy. Just because black juries convict black suspects, doesn't negate that that jury let him off because he was black, and that opinion on the case was divided by racial lines, and that jury racial composition effected the verdict. This isn't up for debate, this is just a fact. You are lying to everyone here and to yourself if you say otherwise.

What evidence is the public(the majority, including most Whites) who thinks OJ is guilty, not privy to? It has all been borne out and it is all known. So your claim that those who think OJ is guilty don't know the facts of the case, which were borne out in the 24/7 media coverage of the case and there after, is patently absurd and doesn't hold up.

First, Garcetti didn't really fight the venue issue. Darden and Clark both complained he gave in too easily.

Second, I agree there is a racial divide. We don't live in a world where the police routinely pull you over for "Driving While Black" or have less respect for your constitutional rights.

So all these lawyers had to do was show that maybe these cops had it out for OJ, that maybe they were less than honest. Maybe they were "Testi-lying".

ANd it was more than enough to hang your hat on.

You see, the standard in our courts is not "I think he did it". The standard is "Beyond a reasonable doubt".

So when you find out Furhman said the N-word a bunch of times when he lied on the stand about doing it, when you find out that the gloves they insisted up and down didn't fit on O.J.'s hands. When Dr. Fung insisted that he collected all the evidence and there was videotape of his interns collecting it.

A trial is often a contest of "Who has the better lawyer". The jurors didn't like Clark, who they saw as a scheming woman trying to bring a black man down, and they didn't like Darden, who they saw as an Uncle Tom. Yet Garcetti picked these two idiots to be politically correct.

Which, bringing us back to the point, is that usualy, it works the other way. You have really good prosecutors taking on overworked, underpaid and inexperienced public defenders, and then we wonder why we have so many cases of people being sent to Death Row for crimes someone else did.

Now you are changing the goal posts. You went from saying the prosecution moved the case to saying in your opinion they didn't do enough to stop it.. That is a huge leap and shows you throwing arguments out there and seeing what sticks. But you move on without batting an eye apparently. As for saying the prosecution didn't do enough, you are just ignoring what the presiding superior court judge supervisor said, that it wasn't Garcetti 's doing. It was out of his hands.

I am glad you admit OJ got off due to his race, not his income. Thus the initial claim you made, that he didnt get the death penalty(which is illegal in California anyways) because of his income level, and that this is an example that the death penalty shouldnt be allowed because all these rich people are getting off while all these innocent poor people are getting executed, is bunk. You went from saying OJ Simpson is an example of a rich person who escaped the death penalty, which wasn't allowed in California, to parroting the talking points to of his defense team and saying whitey is racist. You are all over the place and scatter brained here.

 

[JoeB131]

Now you are changing the goal posts. You went from saying the prosecution moved the case to saying in your opinion they didn't do enough to stop it.. That is a huge leap and shows you throwing arguments out there and seeing what sticks. But you move on without batting an eye apparently. As for saying the prosecution didn't do enough, you are just ignoring what the presiding superior court judge supervisor said, that it wasn't Garcetti 's doing. It was out of his hands.

It's really a distinction without a difference. Garcetti told the court what the logistics he required were in terms of security, accounting for the press, and so on. And the only courthouse that could hold it was in downtown LA>

I am glad you admit OJ got off due to his race, not his income. Thus the initial claim you made, that he didnt get the death penalty(which is illegal in California anyways) because of his income level, and that this is an example that the death penalty shouldnt be allowed because all these rich people are getting off while all these innocent poor people are getting executed, is bunk.

Actually, I never admitted he got off because of his race. He got off because the cops and prosecutors did a shitty job, and he had enough money to point out that they did a shitty job. But if he had been poor, that same shitty police work would have gotten him on death row if he had been poor and drunk. Shit, the guy couldn't even beat a minor robbery beef when his money ran out, which is why he's in prison today.

You went from saying OJ Simpson is an example of a rich person who escaped the death penalty, which wasn't allowed in California, to parroting the talking points to of his defense team and saying whitey is racist. You are all over the place and scatter brained here.

Well, no, you j ust aren't smart enough to follow a conversation, and I don't think I can dumb it down for you any more than I already have.

 

[JoeB131]

Yes. I believe that you may be right, and that I may have mis-read the quick-and-dirty little Wiki article that I'd found on the subject...

Wrongful execution - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

That 4% number was, indeed, a law professor's estimate of wrongful convictions for death-row inmates, not 4% actually executed.

In any event, if that number holds up under a closer scrutiny, it would appear far lower than the 1-in-10 that our colleague Joe has served-up.

Well, the problem with that is that those other cases where they are nowhere near getting the person on a gurney just means their cases haven't been fully adjudicated. So we can say 1398 executed, 153 exonerated, and 3038 inmates on Death Row. Essentially, the system has become so ineffective we can't execute them as fast as we are putting them on death row because for every nine you are pretty sure about, there's one who just plain old didn't do it.

That doesn't count the hundreds who had their sentences reduced do to some kind of police or prosecutorial misconduct.

 

[JoeB131]

What it does do - in the case of murder - is to take vengeance out of the hands of the family and put it into the better-controlled and objective hands of The State.

Why is it you conservatards who don't think the government can run education or health care, think that it capable of determining who needs to die for crimes?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Just like the enlightened country of China.

What's wrong with a firing squad? About as human a method as I can think of.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[
Or maybe we can just get rid of Capital Punishment because it doesn't work.

But if you are going to go all out, fuck, let's bring back the Guilotine. It's quick, it's relatively painless and it satisfies the Bloodlust of people who live in JesusLand.

Since it doesn't work Comrade Stalin, you can point to a few scum who have been executed then went on to murder or rape new victims, right?

 

[JoeB131]

[
Or maybe we can just get rid of Capital Punishment because it doesn't work.

But if you are going to go all out, fuck, let's bring back the Guilotine. It's quick, it's relatively painless and it satisfies the Bloodlust of people who live in JesusLand.

Since it doesn't work Comrade Stalin, you can point to a few scum who have been executed then went on to murder or rape new victims, right?

Lock them up for life, they don't rape or murder new victims, either.

 

[Steinlight]

Now you are changing the goal posts. You went from saying the prosecution moved the case to saying in your opinion they didn't do enough to stop it.. That is a huge leap and shows you throwing arguments out there and seeing what sticks. But you move on without batting an eye apparently. As for saying the prosecution didn't do enough, you are just ignoring what the presiding superior court judge supervisor said, that it wasn't Garcetti 's doing. It was out of his hands.

It's really a distinction without a difference. Garcetti told the court what the logistics he required were in terms of security, accounting for the press, and so on. And the only courthouse that could hold it was in downtown LA>

I am glad you admit OJ got off due to his race, not his income. Thus the initial claim you made, that he didnt get the death penalty(which is illegal in California anyways) because of his income level, and that this is an example that the death penalty shouldnt be allowed because all these rich people are getting off while all these innocent poor people are getting executed, is bunk.

Actually, I never admitted he got off because of his race. He got off because the cops and prosecutors did a shitty job, and he had enough money to point out that they did a shitty job. But if he had been poor, that same shitty police work would have gotten him on death row if he had been poor and drunk. Shit, the guy couldn't even beat a minor robbery beef when his money ran out, which is why he's in prison today.

You went from saying OJ Simpson is an example of a rich person who escaped the death penalty, which wasn't allowed in California, to parroting the talking points to of his defense team and saying whitey is racist. You are all over the place and scatter brained here.

Well, no, you j ust aren't smart enough to follow a conversation, and I don't think I can dumb it down for you any more than I already have.

It is a major difference, in once instance they moved the case, and in the other instance, the court moved the case, and it was the latter that occurred. So your claim is simply wrong, that Is why it matters, so stop trying to obfuscate the issue.. Those weren't the conditions Garcetti required, they were the reasons the Superior Court cited for the decision they made to move the case. If you bothered to read the last link from the Superior Court Judge who was the supervisor for all LA Superior Court judges at the times. Just admit you are wrong and move on.
Trying the O.J. Simpson Case in Terrain Hostile to Prosecution It Wasn t Garcetti s Fault


Yes you did admit it, you said there was a racial divide on the OJ simpson case. So you didn't use those word explicitly, but you have implied it continuously. Especially when you admitted the racial divide on the case. Thus by saying that you are granting the common knowledge position that a white jury would have convicted OJ, thus it is a racial issue, not an issue of income, that got him off the hook. You are the one who said a white jury in Santa Monica convicting OJ in the context and time frame of the Rodney King, in all these instances you are admitting the back drop for this case was entirely racial, and charged among both blacks and whites. Now you are playing dumb and acting like race wasn't at play here, that it was his money that got him off when you know damn well the white jury would have convicted him. Him being able to afford the legal team is besides the point, because that legal team would have lost with a majority white jury in Santa Monica. I shouldn't have to spell it out, because you know I am right, and you are just being difficult and dishonest.

The laughable thing is that you continue to use him in this death penalty analogy of rich men escaping death row, as though that was even on the table during the case, which nullifies your argument at the root of it. You continue to do this when I have told you and a simple Google search would confirm, there was and is no death penalty in California. You are just resorting to insults when I point out the inconsistencies in your logic. You are claiming the death penalty is unjust because of the outcome case where it didn't apply(and where you seem to think the defendant wasn't guilty beyond a reasonable doubt), this is the height of absurdity.

 

[Steinlight]

tl;dr stop posting faggot.

 

[whitehall]

You almost gotta laugh....a backup??? Only a idiot or a true believer would try to confuse reality with nut case fiction.

 

[JoeB131]

It is a major difference, in once instance they moved the case, and in the other instance, the court moved the case, and it was the latter that occurred. So your claim is simply wrong, that Is why it matters, so stop trying to obfuscate the issue.. Those weren't the conditions Garcetti required, they were the reasons the Superior Court cited for the decision they made to move the case. If you bothered to read the last link from the Superior Court Judge who was the supervisor for all LA Superior Court judges at the times. Just admit you are wrong and move on.

You can post all the worthless ass links you want. They couldn't move the case unless Garcetti was on board, which he was. He really thought this case was going to elevate his career before Darden and Clark and the Dancing Itos turned it into a circus. When I read shit like that link (which came out AFTER the verdict) all I see is a lot of finger pointing by people who fucked up a wet dream.

Yes you did admit it, you said there was a racial divide on the OJ simpson case. So you didn't use those word explicitly, but you have implied it continuously. Especially when you admitted the racial divide on the case. Thus by saying that you are granting the common knowledge position that a white jury would have convicted OJ, thus it is a racial issue, not an issue of income, that got him off the hook.

I'm not 100% sure a White Jury would have convicted OJ. Whites on OJ's jury acquitted him along with the blacks. The prosecutors fucked it up, and the "Dream Team" did a pretty good job.

You are the one who said a white jury in Santa Monica convicting OJ in the context and time frame of the Rodney King, in all these instances you are admitting the back drop for this case was entirely racial, and charged among both blacks and whites.

I didn't talk about the Civil Trial, which actually had a much lower burden than a criminal one. But in that one, OJ was out of money, and didn't have the "Dream Team", while the Goldman family did have pretty good lawyers. Which just makes my case, that you get as much justice as you can afford. Until the rich and the poor face the same justice and the same punishments, you don't get a death penalty.

Now you are playing dumb and acting like race wasn't at play here, that it was his money that got him off when you know damn well the white jury would have convicted him. Him being able to afford the legal team is besides the point, because that legal team would have lost with a majority white jury in Santa Monica. I shouldn't have to spell it out, because you know I am right, and you are just being difficult and dishonest.

I don't know if that is the case, honestly. And neither do you. Here's the thing. OJ's wealth was a factor. So was his celebrity. We all invited OJ into our homes at one point between his sports career or his movies. I think he went into that court with more of a "presumption of innocence" than Tyrone the Crackhead gets.

The laughable thing is that you continue to use him in this death penalty analogy of rich men escaping death row, as though that was even on the table during the case, which nullifies your argument at the root of it. You continue to do this when I have told you and an simple Google search would confirm, there was and is no death penalty in California.

There's still a death penalty on the books. The fact that they can't carry them out now is besides the point.

 

[JFK_USA]

How about just being bored to death with libtard whining?

Yeah I mean how dare libtards cruelty of the death penalty. I mean what do they think we are as a country? A country that bans cruel and unusual punishment in their constitution? Crazy thoughts

The founding fathers of the US didn't ban the death penalty. Thus you can't say the 8th Amendment intended to ban it. Appealing to the Constitution as an argument against the death penalty, is a flawed argument. This moral appeal to the Constitution is also flawed because not all of us here are American don't don't base our morality on it.

The Founding Fathers thought black people were 3/5 of a person and that women shouldn't vote, should we not allow that as well? Times change. The ideals of the Constitution were put into place by the Founding Fathers because they understood that times change and we needed a governing document that would withstand the test of time and banning cruel and unusual punishment was one of them. The Founding Fathers didn't approve the death penalty either. And it's not a moral appeal, it's directly in the 8th amendment.

"Nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted." Pretty clear cut to me to kill someone as a government entity that has no human emotions because the entity itself is not human.

I knew this would be your response before you even said it, I can read you idiots like a book.

The 3/5ths compromise was initiated by northern abolitionists at the Convention who wanted to prevent the pro slavery South from counting black slaves as full people to get more representatives in the house, thus more votes, and thus keep slavery in law in perpetuity. I am not even an American, I am European, and I know this, you uneducated dunce.

The issue here isn't whether to follow your Founders to a tee, I don't agree with much of what they did, beginning with breaking from Great Britain and breaking from Monarchy and tradition. The issue here is that you cited the US Constitution as showing the death penalty as cruel an unusual. There is no case law or tradition stemming from the intent of your Founders to show that is the interpretation of the 8th Amendment. And there is no equivalence between that and the 3/5ths Compromise. You are conflating interpretation of the Constitution with amending it. But your example of amending the 3/5ths clause proves my point, short of passing a Federal law banning the death penalty, or amending the Constitution with a new amendment, there is no legal basis for your claim the death penalty is unconstitutional.

You're naive.

First, it's called an ARGUMENT. The Founding Fathers neither said that Death penalty is or is not constitutional. It's not in the constitution AT ALL. That means whatever the government does to punish its citizens can be reviewed by the Supreme Court (thanks to Marbury v. Madison). If the Supreme court views the Death Penalty itself as cruel and unusual punishment, it can rule it unconstitutional. Much like the Supreme Court overruled Plessy v. Ferguson with Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka. It has that power.

I never said the words "the Constitution says the death penalty is cruel and unusual", I said an argument could be made that it is cruel and unusual punishment which would have to be litigated through the courts.

 

[Steinlight]

How about just being bored to death with libtard whining?

Yeah I mean how dare libtards cruelty of the death penalty. I mean what do they think we are as a country? A country that bans cruel and unusual punishment in their constitution? Crazy thoughts

The founding fathers of the US didn't ban the death penalty. Thus you can't say the 8th Amendment intended to ban it. Appealing to the Constitution as an argument against the death penalty, is a flawed argument. This moral appeal to the Constitution is also flawed because not all of us here are American don't don't base our morality on it.

The Founding Fathers thought black people were 3/5 of a person and that women shouldn't vote, should we not allow that as well? Times change. The ideals of the Constitution were put into place by the Founding Fathers because they understood that times change and we needed a governing document that would withstand the test of time and banning cruel and unusual punishment was one of them. The Founding Fathers didn't approve the death penalty either. And it's not a moral appeal, it's directly in the 8th amendment.

"Nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted." Pretty clear cut to me to kill someone as a government entity that has no human emotions because the entity itself is not human.

I knew this would be your response before you even said it, I can read you idiots like a book.

The 3/5ths compromise was initiated by northern abolitionists at the Convention who wanted to prevent the pro slavery South from counting black slaves as full people to get more representatives in the house, thus more votes, and thus keep slavery in law in perpetuity. I am not even an American, I am European, and I know this, you uneducated dunce.

The issue here isn't whether to follow your Founders to a tee, I don't agree with much of what they did, beginning with breaking from Great Britain and breaking from Monarchy and tradition. The issue here is that you cited the US Constitution as showing the death penalty as cruel an unusual. There is no case law or tradition stemming from the intent of your Founders to show that is the interpretation of the 8th Amendment. And there is no equivalence between that and the 3/5ths Compromise. You are conflating interpretation of the Constitution with amending it. But your example of amending the 3/5ths clause proves my point, short of passing a Federal law banning the death penalty, or amending the Constitution with a new amendment, there is no legal basis for your claim the death penalty is unconstitutional.

You're naive.

First, it's called an ARGUMENT. The Founding Fathers neither said that Death penalty is or is not constitutional. It's not in the constitution AT ALL. That means whatever the government does to punish its citizens can be reviewed by the Supreme Court (thanks to Marbury v. Madison). If the Supreme court views the Death Penalty itself as cruel and unusual punishment, it can rule it unconstitutional. Much like the Supreme Court overruled Plessy v. Ferguson with Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka. It has that power.

I never said the words "the Constitution says the death penalty is cruel and unusual", I said an argument could be made that it is cruel and unusual punishment which would have to be litigated through the courts.

Naive? How do you figure you ignoramus?

Laws are constitutional until they are deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. The Founding Fathers of your country don't need to "proclaim" the constitutionality of every law to make it so. This is pretty simple, but the common logic seems to escape you. But that lack of common logic seem to fit with your general lack of knowledge, including your own country's history and Constitution.

 

[Steinlight]

It is a major difference, in once instance they moved the case, and in the other instance, the court moved the case, and it was the latter that occurred. So your claim is simply wrong, that Is why it matters, so stop trying to obfuscate the issue.. Those weren't the conditions Garcetti required, they were the reasons the Superior Court cited for the decision they made to move the case. If you bothered to read the last link from the Superior Court Judge who was the supervisor for all LA Superior Court judges at the times. Just admit you are wrong and move on.

You can post all the worthless ass links you want. They couldn't move the case unless Garcetti was on board, which he was. He really thought this case was going to elevate his career before Darden and Clark and the Dancing Itos turned it into a circus. When I read shit like that link (which came out AFTER the verdict) all I see is a lot of finger pointing by people who fucked up a wet dream.

Yes you did admit it, you said there was a racial divide on the OJ simpson case. So you didn't use those word explicitly, but you have implied it continuously. Especially when you admitted the racial divide on the case. Thus by saying that you are granting the common knowledge position that a white jury would have convicted OJ, thus it is a racial issue, not an issue of income, that got him off the hook.

I'm not 100% sure a White Jury would have convicted OJ. Whites on OJ's jury acquitted him along with the blacks. The prosecutors fucked it up, and the "Dream Team" did a pretty good job.

You are the one who said a white jury in Santa Monica convicting OJ in the context and time frame of the Rodney King, in all these instances you are admitting the back drop for this case was entirely racial, and charged among both blacks and whites.

I didn't talk about the Civil Trial, which actually had a much lower burden than a criminal one. But in that one, OJ was out of money, and didn't have the "Dream Team", while the Goldman family did have pretty good lawyers. Which just makes my case, that you get as much justice as you can afford. Until the rich and the poor face the same justice and the same punishments, you don't get a death penalty.

Now you are playing dumb and acting like race wasn't at play here, that it was his money that got him off when you know damn well the white jury would have convicted him. Him being able to afford the legal team is besides the point, because that legal team would have lost with a majority white jury in Santa Monica. I shouldn't have to spell it out, because you know I am right, and you are just being difficult and dishonest.

I don't know if that is the case, honestly. And neither do you. Here's the thing. OJ's wealth was a factor. So was his celebrity. We all invited OJ into our homes at one point between his sports career or his movies. I think he went into that court with more of a "presumption of innocence" than Tyrone the Crackhead gets.

The laughable thing is that you continue to use him in this death penalty analogy of rich men escaping death row, as though that was even on the table during the case, which nullifies your argument at the root of it. You continue to do this when I have told you and an simple Google search would confirm, there was and is no death penalty in California.

There's still a death penalty on the books. The fact that they can't carry them out now is besides the point.

Just dismissing what the Supervising LA Superior Court Judge, when he said it was the call of the presiding judge, not the prosecution, isn't an argument at all. You just keep repeating your same incorrect point after it has been rebutted and the facts are to the contrary of what you say, you just keep coming around and saying it in different ways. No matter how many times you say the prosecution is responsible for moving the case, you are wrong. This point isn't even disputable, you are just wrong, the case is closed here.

The fact is, what you are "sure of", doesn't mean anything, just because you lack an opinion doesn't mean there isn't prevailing common sense position on the matter. The legal experts agreed that if the trial was held in Santa Monica there would have been a guilty verdict or a hung jury, and this basically matches the polling at the time which reflects the racial divide that has been discussed here. Legal experts like Professor Robert Pugsley of Southwestern University and even members of OJ Simpson's jury consultant team like Richard Gabriel state represent a segment of this prevailing wisdom when they state that a Santa Monica jury would have been far more advantageous to the prosecution. I'll take their word over some snarky liberal faggot on a message board.
Location of Trial Can Be Crucial to Outcome Experts Say Court Simpson case is latest to show importance of jury pool. Garcetti didn t have to try it Downtown many insist. - Los Angeles Times
Trying the O.J. Simpson Case in Terrain Hostile to Prosecution It Wasn t Garcetti s Fault

And I shouldn't even have to post their views, because this is a view shared by all thinking people, regardless of what side of the case they were on. This is just a fact.

Honestly, this is a frivolous exercise because it totally distracts from the main point about the death penalty and OJ Simpson being an example of a rich man avoiding death row, thus proving the death penalty unjust.

The point has zero merit, not only because he would have been far more likely to have been convicted by a wealthier Santa Monica jury, but also, because the death penalty was never on the table at any point in the trial because it wasn't permitted in California. The fact that the death penalty is illegal in California isn't beside the point, it is the point, and totally nullifies your claim. So your whole claim of the injustice of the death penalty is made up on a claim which isn't real and has no basis in reality.

 

[JoeB131]

Just dismissing what the Supervising LA Superior Court Judge, when he said it was the call of the presiding judge, not the prosecution, isn't an argument at all. You just keep repeating your same incorrect point after it has been rebutted and the facts are to the contrary of what you say, you just keep coming around and saying it in different ways. No matter how many times you say the prosecution is responsible for moving the case, you are wrong. This point isn't even disputable, you are just wrong, the case is closed here.

Yeah, it's closed for you. Sounds like Garcetti was trying to blame the Judge for his fuckup because he thought he had a slam dunk case that was going to put him in the Governor's mansion. Instead, he was almost defeated in 1996.

The fact is, what you are "sure of", doesn't mean anything, just because you lack an opinion doesn't mean there isn't prevailing common sense position on the matter. The legal experts agreed that if the trial was held in Santa Monica there would have been a guilty verdict or a hung jury, and this basically matches the polling at the time which reflects the racial divide that has been discussed here.

The legal experts thought he'd get convicted in LA. They really convinced themselves that this case was a slam dunk. They got on the TV every night and cooed about how Darden and Clark were making their case.

And then the jury said otherwise. Fucking Juries!

So I don't put a lot of faith in what "legal experts" say about what might have been or could have been.

Honestly, this is a frivolous exercise because it totally distracts from the main point about the death penalty and OJ Simpson being an example of a rich man avoiding death row, thus proving the death penalty unjust.

And that's the point. OJ was able to afford top flight lawyers and jury consultants and press people and he was able to quite literally get away with murder.

Other people like Rolando Cruz got convicted of murders they didn't commit because they were poor, their lawyers were incompetent and the justice system pretty much was out to frame them. Initially out of laziness, and later out of pride.

A system THAT flawed should never have a penalty that can't be taken back.

 

[Steinlight]

Just dismissing what the Supervising LA Superior Court Judge, when he said it was the call of the presiding judge, not the prosecution, isn't an argument at all. You just keep repeating your same incorrect point after it has been rebutted and the facts are to the contrary of what you say, you just keep coming around and saying it in different ways. No matter how many times you say the prosecution is responsible for moving the case, you are wrong. This point isn't even disputable, you are just wrong, the case is closed here.

Yeah, it's closed for you. Sounds like Garcetti was trying to blame the Judge for his fuckup because he thought he had a slam dunk case that was going to put him in the Governor's mansion. Instead, he was almost defeated in 1996.

The fact is, what you are "sure of", doesn't mean anything, just because you lack an opinion doesn't mean there isn't prevailing common sense position on the matter. The legal experts agreed that if the trial was held in Santa Monica there would have been a guilty verdict or a hung jury, and this basically matches the polling at the time which reflects the racial divide that has been discussed here.

The legal experts thought he'd get convicted in LA. They really convinced themselves that this case was a slam dunk. They got on the TV every night and cooed about how Darden and Clark were making their case.

And then the jury said otherwise. Fucking Juries!

So I don't put a lot of faith in what "legal experts" say about what might have been or could have been.

Honestly, this is a frivolous exercise because it totally distracts from the main point about the death penalty and OJ Simpson being an example of a rich man avoiding death row, thus proving the death penalty unjust.

And that's the point. OJ was able to afford top flight lawyers and jury consultants and press people and he was able to quite literally get away with murder.

Other people like Rolando Cruz got convicted of murders they didn't commit because they were poor, their lawyers were incompetent and the justice system pretty much was out to frame them. Initially out of laziness, and later out of pride.

A system THAT flawed should never have a penalty that can't be taken back.

It closed period. You are just wrong. Either admit it or stop prattling on with this nonsense. The prosecution can't "fuck up" on a decision that wasn't theirs to make. LOL at saying Garcetti is blaming the judge when it is the supervising judge of the superior court and the superior's court presiding judge at the time both say it was the Superior Court's decision to make. You are making yourself look like more of an idiot by the minute. First you say the Prosecution called for the case to be moved, than you shift and say they "fucked up" by not stopping the court form moving the case, now you just continue to make up shit as you go along. You are a bullshiter, and not even a good one. I don't even see the point of continuing to make objectively false statements on this issue. Are you a compulsive liar or something?

More nonsense on your part. Everyone knew moving it to downtown LA improved the odds of the defense, including legal experts. That is why it was such a big deal when it happened and is talked about until this day. Because the opinion of the legal experts so clearly lines up with the survey data on race about the oj simpson verdict. But doesn't take a legal expert to know that moving the case to a "diverse" area with "lower educated" and emotionally charged jury pool in a high profile case in a racially charged environment could change the outcome, anyone with an IQ above room temperature can recognize this, except for you apparently. Because in your mind, OJ Simpson got off the death penalty sentence in a state where the death penalty was illegal because he was rich, when a rich white jury would have been more likely to at least have a hung jury, but probably convict. But please, tell us more about how OJ beat the death penalty and this proves we need to ban it, lol.

Funny how you cite the Rolando Cruz case as an example of a sentence that "can't be reversed". Because a simple 30 second google search and click on wiki confirms his death sentence was overturned on DNA evidence and he was fully exonerated. It looks like it was reversed after all.

 

[JoeB131]

It closed period. You are just wrong. Either admit it or stop prattling on with this nonsense. The prosecution can't "fuck up" on a decision that wasn't theirs to make. LOL at saying Garcetti is blaming the judge when it is the supervising judge of the superior court and the superior's court presiding judge at the time both say it was the Superior Court's decision to make. You are making yourself look like more of an idiot by the minute. First you say the Prosecution called for the case to be moved, than you shift and say they "fucked up" by not stopping the court form moving the case, now you just continue to make up shit as you go along. You are a bullshiter, and not even a good one. I don't even see the point of continuing to make objectively false statements on this issue. Are you a compulsive liar or something?

Again, Garcetti didn't fight for a White Jury because he knew how bad that would look.

Funny how you cite the Rolando Cruz case as an example of a sentence that "can't be reversed". Because a simple 30 second google search and click on wiki confirms his death sentence was overturned on DNA evidence and he was fully exonerated. It looks like it was reversed after all.

But it was ONLY reversed because a lot of people fought very hard to get it reversed.

Let's review, shall we. He was convicted the first time because the Keystone Cops out here in DuPage thought he "looked good for it" after he tried to scam them out of some reward money. Except another guy, Brian Dugan actually admitted to doing it by the time it got to trial, they had their guy and they were going to convict him.

Then they got the the verdict overturned, and they put him on trial again and got another conviction, because DuPage County just couldn't admit it made a mistake. That was thrown out due to prosecutorial misconduct.

By the time they got around to a THIRD Trial, some 12 years after the murder, one of the cops FINALLY admitted he lied about Cruz confessing to the crime. And, oh, yeah, they got around to testing the DNA evidence and it really was Dugan all along. Fucking Scooby Doo could have figured it out at that point.

So let's review- RIch- you can get away with murder.
Poor - You get convicted of murders someone else gleefully confessed to. Twice.

Yes, we totally need a penalty that can't be undone with a situation like that.